MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155656611 · doi:10.1037/neu0000037

The neuropsychological outcomes of concussion: A systematic review of meta-analyses on the cognitive sequelae of mild traumatic brain injury.

2013· review· en· W2155656611 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsConcussionNeuropsychologyMeta-analysisPsychologySystematic reviewCognitionTraumatic brain injuryClinical psychologyAthletesNeuropsychological assessmentPoison controlModerationCognitive rehabilitation therapyRehabilitationObservational studyInjury preventionPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINEMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI), also known as concussion, has become a growing public health concern, prevalent in both athletic and military settings. Many researchers have examined post-mTBI neuropsychological outcomes, leading to multiple meta-analyses amalgamating individual study results. OBJECTIVE: Considering the plethora of meta-analytic findings, the next logical step stands as a systematic review of meta-analyses, effectively reporting key moderators that predict post-mTBI neuropsychological outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review of reviews yielded 11 meta-analyses meeting inclusion criteria (i.e., English-language systematic reviews/meta-analyses covering post-mTBI observational cognitive research on late adolescents/adults), with their findings qualitatively synthesized based on moderator variables (i.e., cognitive domain, time since injury, past head injury, participant characteristics, comparison group, assessment technique, and persistent symptoms). RESULTS: The overall effect sizes ranged for both general (range: .07-.61) and sports-related mTBI (range: .40-.81) and differed both between and within cognitive domains, with executive functions appearing most sensitive to multiple mTBI. Cognitive domains varied in recovery rates, but overall recovery occurred by 90 days postinjury for most individuals and by 7 days postinjury for athletes. Greater age/education and male gender produced smaller effects sizes, and high school athletes suffered the largest deficits post-mTBI. Control-group comparisons yielded larger effects than within-person designs, and assessment techniques had limited moderating effects. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, meta-analytic review quality remained low with few studies assessing publication or study quality bias. Meta-analyses consistently identified adverse acute mTBI-related effects and fairly rapid symptom resolution. Future meta-analyses should better operationally define cognitive constructs to produce more consistent effect estimates across domains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.605
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it